vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their votes? if not, the ayes 58. nays 41. the nomination is confirmed. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president shall be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, one of my colleagues -- the presiding officer: order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, one of my colleagues recently said something that after a week at home with my constituents i'm sure we're all feeling the same

way, referring to the across-the-board cuts from sequestration that are just days from going into effect. he said when it's in your state or your backyard, it's devastating. madam president, i think that is exactly right. they would be devastating for our families, our national defense, and our economy. but these cuts can be avoided if congress comes together on a balanced replacement. we should replace the sequestration in a balanced way and then we should move forward on a fair comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for our families and businesses. i know my constituents in washington state want to see a deal because if we are unable to find a fair replacement for sequestration, everything from our military bases to our schools are going to be affected. 29,000 local civilian defense employees could be furloughed. thousands of washington students could lose access to head start services and basic education resources.

1,000 workers cleaning up dangerous nuclear material at the hanford nuclear site could be furloughed for weeks. and washington state's military bases could face hundreds of millions in cuts to crucial areas like new aircraft acquisition, research and development, flying hours, ship operations. madam president, we are days away from allowing these kinds of impacts to begin in every one of our home states. we never should have reached this point, but there is no denying we have. we are days away from sequestration because my republican colleagues continue to insist that while it's fine to cut programs that families and communities depend on, the wealthiest americans shouldn't have to make any further contributions to deficit reduction. now the last few years have been very difficult ones for bipartisanship, but i truly believe all of us know there is a smarter way to reduce our debt and deficit. we can do better than throwing

up our hands and permitting these across-the-board cuts to go into effect. and we know the american people deserve better. that is exactly why democrats have put forward a credible, responsible plan to replace sequestration. our legislation builds on the precedent set in the year-end deal and it is in line with the balanced approach the american people favor. it would replace half of the first year of sequestration with responsible spending cuts and half of it with revenue for those who can afford it the most. our bill calls on the wealthiest americans to pay at least the same marginal tax rate on their income as our middle-income families pay. and it would eliminate needless tax breaks for oil and gas companies and companies shipping jobs overseas. and at the same time our replacement package would make responsible cuts. our bill would eliminate direct payments to farmers that have been paid out even during good times and for crops farmers

weren't even growing. and as the drawdown from afghanistan is completed, our bill will make adjustments to our military that are in line with a strong 21st century strategy. our legislation meets the republicans halfway. it will protect the families and communities we represent from slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and weakened national defense. and it would allow us to move past sequestration towards working on a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for american businesses and families. madam president, my republican colleagues will say that the year-end deal closed the door on using revenue to bring down the deficit. they'll say that all we need is spending cuts. you know what? that's not how the american people see it. more than a month after the year-end deal, 76% of americans and 56% of republicans favor a combination of spending cuts and

revenue increases to reduce our deficit. house republicans have put forward a plan that does the exact opposite. they passed a bill last congress, i would add, that would replace only the automatic defense cuts. it would force our struggling, hardworking families who have been through so much and our juries to bear the burden of deficit reduction. their bill didn't include a penny of new revenue and it is unclear if it would even be able to pass the house this congress if they brought it up for a vote. what house republicans offered, in other words, was more of the same extreme and partisan approach that has led american families and our economy from one crisis to another crisis to another. it's what we saw actually when republicans held up funding for the federal aviation administration, stalling airport construction projects and putting tens of thousands of workers' jobs at rate. what we saw during the debt ceiling debate when tea party republicans held our economy

hostage, fighting for fiscal policies that economists across the spectrum say are hugely irresponsible. it's what we saw less than two months ago when republicans waited until the very last minute to protect 98% of americans from income tax hikes. this strategy which puts a wrongheaded ideology above our american families and our economy just doesn't work. and republicans latest strategy to just let sequester happen is even worse. in fact, as tea party republicans in the house cheer on the sequester, here's what's being produced by companies in states all across the country. this is what is called a warn notice. that's just what is -- that's just washington talk for what it really is. it is a layoff notice or furlough notice. if republicans choose to block a balanced approach to replace the sequester, this is what is going to begin arriving in a matter of days at the doorsteps of workers

in our country. this piece of paper -- looks like this -- is going to spell serious economic setbacks for our families, for their ability to send their kids to college and for the economy of our communities. this will be the consequence of republicans' complete unwillingness today to compromise. i think we can all agree -- our workers should not have to worry about political posturing putting their jobs at risk. businesses should not have to think about elected first of all, -- elected officials holding the economy hostages. and families should not have to wonder one month what their paychecks will look like next month because of a debate here. i'd like to ask my republican colleagues to seriously, seriously, consider our proposal. replacing the sequester with evenly divided spending cuts and revenues, a balanced approach

that americans support, would put us on a path to end this pattern of governing by crisis for all our constituents, and that, madam president, will allow us to get to work on a long-term budget agreement that is fair to our middle class, that gets our debt and deficit under control and reflects the values and priorities of the american people. the american people want a balanced deal. they want us to manage our finances. they want us to put together a budget and move forward. we want to do that. we want to get out of this crisis biby crisis. the program that we are offering to replace the sequester for this year will allow us to get back to that process and begin to manage our country in a better way. so, madam president, i hope our republican colleagues join us in this and help us notify a place where we can assure the american public that we do care about their future and their finances and the fragile economy that we're now facing. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you. madam president, i came to the united states senate in 2006, and i was the only new republican elected to the senate that year. many people considered that a great accomplishment, but my greatest accomplishment of 2006 was convincing ramona lessen to put off retirement for just a few more years and stay on as my scheduler and executive assistant. after six years in washington, i know without a doubt that the biggest success of my first term is that ramona did not fire me -- until now. ramona is retiring this week after 34 years. i'm told that she violated child labor laws by starting work when she was five years old.

ramona came to the senate in 1979 to work for senator already aralready--larry pressler from e south dakota. she worked for senator pressler for 16 years plus two when he was in the house. when ramona began working in the senate in 1979, jimmy carter was president, robert byrd was the majority leader, and howard baker was the republican leader, and probably most relevant to ramona, espn started broadcasting. post-it notes were invented and one of the most popular songs was gloria gainer's "i will survive." she has not only survived but thrived in the united states senate for more than three decade. in 1994 she took another new tennessee senator named bill frist under her wing. she worked for senator frist for 12 years and then in 2506 i convinced -- and then in 2006 i

workeconvinced her to work in or office for one year. that has turned into six years. ramona has learned a lot about me. i've learned that ramona loves music. her first job was as a high school band director. she is a great piano player. she's played the pee annie at my home and at staff gatherings. she loves country music. i think that's a big reason she has adopted tennessee as her second home state. i've learned that it isn't too hard to know where you stand with ramone flay. occasionally i'll make a request or suggestion and ramona responds with a certaining expression, a polite term for a look of disapproval. and i know exactly where i stand and sometimes candidly often i recalibrate my position per request. i've learned that ramona is a huge sports fan.

if the masters or u.s. open are on, i'm not going to interrupt her. she also loves football and that's appropriate because i've also learned that she is a master of the awbled. in 2008 i was heavily involved in an effort to bring volkswagen's u.s. production facility to chattanooga. just before one of the final meetings in tennessee, a planeful of decision-makers was stuck on the tarmac in germany without clear action to land in the u.s. some kind of paperwork issue. anybody who has been involved in a major recruitment effort knows that in something like this, even a small glitch can be a major setback. the volkswagen folks called me. i talked with ramona. i am not entitled sure what she did but i'm sure it was all legal and above board. at one point she was sitting there jockeying several phone

calls on th on the switchboard d talking the plane off the runway in germany. the volkswagen executives landed in the u.s. highly impressed with ramona lessen. shortly thereafter, they chose chattanooga for her u.s. production facility. she was a home run no doubt. i think ramona's greatest contribution is her ability to make staff a family, and office a a home. ramona makes sure that we're celebrating each other. babies are born, people are getting married, and life in general. at christmastime she makes sure the office is decorated and filled with christmas music.

her favorite moments in the office are when someone brings a baby or a child. that child learns quickly, as we all do, that ramona keeps a basket of candy in her desk. and there's a good chance that the child's picture is on ramona's cherished bulletin board. her loud, infectious laugh is a staple at staff gatherings. it will be sorely missed. as there is a memorable saying in the movie, "the queen -- where queen elizabeth tells prime minister tony blair, "you are my tenth prime minister, mr. blair. i am proud to have been ramona lessen's third senator. senators come and go, but for 34 years ramona lessen has been a constant? the senate. the senate is better for t our country and tennessee are better pour it. i know senator pressler, senator frist are better for it. our staffs are better for it.

and i am better for it. ramone narcs i thank you for taking pity on a new senator and for showing me the ropes over the past six years. i thank you for your friendship. wish you and joe the very, very best in years to come. i know when the time comes, tennessee will be your second -- your second home state and will welcome you to retirement with open arms. i yield the floor. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. corker: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: throughout this month, students across my state, across ohio, are reciting speeches by sojourny truth, frederick douglass and martin luther king to commemorate black

history month. dr. carter woods started what was originally called negro history month in february between abraham lincoln and frederick douglass' birthdays. dr. woodson initiated the week-long tribute to incorporate the legacies, the images and historical contributions of african-americans into the greater american story. today, people throughout the united states celebrate national african-american history month to ensure that all americans' stories are recognized. ohio has been the scene for which many of these chapters were written. in mount pleasant, ohio, the first antislavery newspaper in the united states, the philanthropist, was published in 1817. the ohio antislavery society was founded in zanesville, ohio, in 1835. my home state has played a rich role in american history. so, too, have so many ohioans. every new u.s. passport includes the words of a formerly enslaved

oberlin college graduate, dr. julian cooper. she wrote -- it's on your passport if you hold one -- the cause of a race is not a party or a class. it's the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity. in yellow springs, ohio, a young music student at antioch college, coretta scott, would work alongside her husband, dr. martin luther king, for social and economic justice in our country. former wilburforce university student was the lead strategist in a 1963 march on washington for jobs and freedom. the only living american with a nobel prize in literature, toni morrison was born and raised in lorain, ohio. today in classrooms and communities across the state and across the nation the next generation of americans in my state the next generation of ohioans is starting to make its mark on american history.

madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following remarks be separate from what i just did. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today in support of a great sport with a great tradition in our nation, especially in ohio. unfortunately, wrestling, the sport of wrestling may be put on the sidelines of the olympic games, citing "an effort to ensure the olympic games remain relevant to sports fans of all generations, the olympic committee the organization that controls the olympics voted to eliminate wrestling from the summer games after the 2016 olympics. they want end wrestling, one of the original games while keeping other games that frankly lack its central role in the -- that lack the central role that wrestling has played or its accessibility to all athletes wherever they live. many of these are young people who lack access, many who want to compete and do compete in

wrestling, at the high school level, the intercollegiate level and perhaps at the olympic level, many of these are young people who lack access to fancy equipment or specialized training, they simply want to compete in a sport, perhaps as almost as old as humanity. wrestling's open doors for working class youngsters from ohio and around the country. recently i introduced a resolution owe pezing the elimination of olympics -- elimination of wrestling from the olympics. on behalf of two olympians, i'm asking the olympic committee to reconsider putting a strangle hold on one of the original olympic sports. wrestling has been a sport far, far longer than the olympic committee has been in existence. necessity in addition to the ain gent egyptians and greeks and romans, our nation has a long history with roman. president lincoln was a wrestler. ewe lilies s. grants and william

howard taft were wrestlers. one of our colleagues, the beloved, my friend, paul wellstone of minnesota was inducted in the national wrestling hall of fame in 2000. he said twet wrestling has always been a big thing for me. he said i've had a love affair with the sport most of ply my life. i got in some trouble, up found a sport i was good at and that transferred to better things in other areas in my life. the same is true for some 11,000 high school wrestlers and students at four universities with 17 n caa wrestling programs in my state. to high school meets like the renowned j.c. gorman invitational in mansfield to the ncaa tournament, sciewnts in ohio have egg learned the strength and discipline and focus that that allows grapplers to succeed. wrestling is accessible for working class athletes unlike some of the sports protected in

the i.o.c.'s decision. it has a proud tradition in our state and in the united states and has a proud tradition around the world. the i.o.c. should not ratify this preliminary decision by its executive board, should continue its efforts to remain relevant for all athletes and communities around the world. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding we're having a quorum call at this time, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent that that be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 388. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 388, a bill to appropriately limit sequestration to eliminate tax loopholes, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i have a cloture motion which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 388, a bill to appropriately limit sequestration to eliminate tax loopholes, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- reid of nevada,

mikulski, murray, gillibrand, reed of rhode island, brown, leahy, casey, durbin, shaheen, blumenthal, cardin, schumer, stabenow, boxer, whitehouse, begich. mr. reid: madam president, we do this so -- to make sure that people are on their toes. sometimes these signatures aren't the easiest to read. i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that we proceed to -- the senate proceed to s. res. 56.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 56, a resolution recognizing the significance of the 100th anniversary of the death of hair hair -- harriet ross tubman. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i am going to ask unanimous consent that we pass this, but i read a year and a half or two years ago two books about this woman, harriet tubman. stunning. all the movies being made about courageous, strong americans, someone should make a movie of this woman. i mean, just amazing what she was able to do. one little woman did so much to change what went on in america back at that time. okay. i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the

senate proceed to s. res. 57. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 57, designating february 28, 2013, as rare disease day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to the sequester legislation be modified to permit the republican leader to introduce a bill on wednesday, february 27, consistent with the language which is at the desk, that all the provisions of the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered.

mr. reid: madam president, ski consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, wednesday, february 27. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for an hour, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half, republicans controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, the mns committee reported the

nomination of jack lugar to be be -- to be treasury secretary. we hope to consider his nomination tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before this body, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> i've got to give scott original credit. he's one of your republican congressman with a steer today and that's not always healthy for a republican, d. with me. the reason he is doing it is because he's important to you. he's asked his colleagues are in the house to consider closing tax loopholes instead of letting this automatic cut go through.

he is more than prepared to make similar tax cuts, but he wants to do it in a smart way. some of because we proposed, bobby might not think are perfect, but he knows do that to make some tough decisions. he wants to make sure you are the ones adversely impacted. we are sharing the sacrifice in the devastated. we are not just dumping it on a few people. senators like john mccain have made similar statements. your republican governor, along with congress to stop the sequester, stop the skies. but i just had to be honest with you. there're too many republicans in congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. that is what is holding things up right now.

keep in mind nobody is asking them to raise income tax rates. we asked to consider closing tax loopholes and deductions that the speaker of the house, john boehner, said he was willing to do a few months ago. he said there were loopholes and reductions yuko close come as a could 800 coming trillion dollars by closing loopholes. we're not even asking for that much. all we are asking as they close loopholes for the well-off and well-connected, hedge fund managers are corporate jet owners who are all doing very well so we can avoid laying off workers were kicking kids out of head start or reducing financial aid for college students. i don't think that's too much to ask. i don't think that's partisan. the majority of the american people agree with me. we need to get this done.

[cheers and applause] but the choice is up to congress. only congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging coyotes and replaces them with my savings and tax reform. and the second i get that bit on my desk, i will sign it into law, but it's got to get congress to pass it. none of us will get 100% of what we want. democrats, they've got to make some tough choices, too. democrats like me have said were prepared to make cuts including programs like medicare. but if we are willing to compromise, that's what democracy is about what this country needs right now.

>> earlier today, pentagon spokesman, george little, said they had made no plans to its overall defense strategy in the

automatic budget cuts approach, the sequester would result in a 9% overall cut the military budget. he spoke with reporters at the pentagon for about 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> qaeda man. before getting to your questions, let me address one of the narratives in recent days regarding sequester set to begin friday unless congress acts. there seems to be a belief in some quarters that when it comes to negative impact the sequester will have on our national defense and military readiness, the department of defense is

crying wolf. nothing could be further from the truth. he hurt from dod leaders in the past weeks is not hype. it is the blunt truth. it isn't exaggeration. as the clear eyed assessment of what would have been to the department if we were forced to put this mindless mechanism fully into place. under the guidance of secretary cannot come in the department leaders have been candid and forthright in describing how the military would operate in a post-sequester world. still, i know they remain confusions over how sequester would function and whether there's any steps that might mitigate the harm. let me try to address the confusion. first, i do now, sequestration goes into effect for the remainder of the year, it will require the department of defense took a

in operations and maintenance

accounts. across dod, we will be short 20% of the requirements for operating funds and percentage will be close to 40% for the united states army. the shortfall means that the army will have to share the ki training, leaving most of its nonemployee brigade teams below readiness standards. the same is true for air force combat units. the navy and marine corps will also have to/readiness. as in other navy has carriers deployed to avoid the risk of being some sort of operating dollars that it could not deploy the prospect of the skies let the chairman, vice chairman and joint to recently signed a 28 star letter, stating, and i quote, the readiness of our armed forces is at a tipping point. we're on the brink of creating a hollow force. the department leaders are working to avoid the worst effects of this regrettable

situation and will continue to do so, but the solution to the self-made crisis can be found in this building. the solution is congress passing a balanced deficit reduction package in appropriations bills that the president can sign and the trigger sequestration. the department leaders have a responsibility tunic that case to congressional leadership in the american people. and with that, i'll take your questions. >> i have a question about the isaf numbers that they said their correct in the numbers on a number of taliban attacks last year. a couple questions. the report to congress is based on our numbers, are you going to correct a report? also, does this lead to a rethinking about sure strength of the taliban, given you miscalculated the tax initiative? >> this is a regrettable error

that was discovered during a routine quality check. making the appropriate adjustments. the fact that 80% of the violence taking place in areas remains unchanged. as we've said repeatedly, we pushed the taliban out of the population centers and they've failed to retake any areas they lost during the surgeon this remains true. additionally, the trend to currently are annoyed for the vast majority of operations and have taken a leading role in providing security for 87% of the country's population. there's a tendency to fixate on one metric, a particular database number or insider attacks are casualties. the complete picture process in afghanistan is more nuanced and i would encourage you to look at

the overall picture. we're looking to fix this database error that we will report further information as we have it, probably from kabul. we will take a look at any adjustments you need to be made to the 1230 report. >> does that also call into question other statistics because as you say, the afghan forces are now in the late increasingly and they're the ones entering the words. and you've been -- many people have acknowledged that problem of literacy that your pc with the afghan forces. so once you have to do a closer review of a lot of the statistics that have been cited repeatedly from the podium? >> i don't know that we have to undertake a broader review, but as you transition, we have to collect information with them. we need to make sure that our numbers and our numbers are accurate, reported effectively

and that which i thought the correct analytics at the end. we have a strong interest in conveying into duty to convey as accurate information as possible to you and the american people. and to the afghans come in the people. i view this as a limited instead and at this stage if there is a broader problem, of course will be forthright about it. >> is there a problem for a finite. or is it some and i have been over the course of the entire year? >> i think isaf -- we will certainly touch base with them and try to drive up more information for you and others in the room. justin. >> so to what do you contribute the relatively or comparatively good numbers so far this year? i believe only for hostile u.s. deaths compared to around 60 or so this time last year.

>> it really is these tori of tremendous progress and that the longer story than i have to tell from this podium today. but if in part what steps american and isaf partners have done to orient this very effective campaign in the right direction. it is also at the afghans are doing themselves to orient their own campaign and what we are doing together in afghanistan. we see major muscle movements on all three tracks. i think if you had the progress, bearing in mind there were still challenges out there that we are not discounting challenges that remain in the midst of a war come to the overall trend lines are positive. >> is it not at all about moving --

>> all i you and follow a tiered >> thank you it isn't not pulling from certain areas, but in most of the u.s. space on a lot of the site? is not about the trend at all? >> well, i think this will revert to try to achieve all along, and that is to make this war effort over time more and more afghan, not just the face of afghan for their own country, but also their capabilities. and we are doing a fair effect of job enabling them. and in many cases, they've surpassed our expectations. that's not to say we don't have work to be done. there's still work to be done in certain areas. but they have really taken on this site willingly and it ain't great sacrifices and were trying to help them every step of the way.

show. >> do you have any comments -- do you do you have any comments on the times story that saudi arabia is provided by things to the rivals through cory shot? do you think this is the right way to beat the s-sierra and crisis and does the pentagon have any concerns that these weapons will end up in the hands of terrorist groups, for example? >> i can't speak to the reported policies of other countries. i refer you to saudi arabia. our policy is assistance to opposition has come a policy we continue to support at the pentagon. the overall narrative remains the same. this is the narrative of the syrian people. bashar assad needs to go. he is recklessly violent. he is brought greater brutality to his own people.

he needs to step down in the future of the syrian people needs to be defined by the syrian people and that is what we're working towards. all the steps the government that are just taking a serious condition of the opposition and humanitarian assistance and other steps that we are trying to take to hope the syrian people. at this time, we remain committed to a policy. >> now the florida plate on senator hagel and it and is scheduled to vote this afternoon. what is the plan for his first days in office and what is your goal in terms of making him fully in charge and able to do congress after this confirmation?

>> the steps post confirmation should have been to come as early as this afternoon are still to be announced. we certainly don't want to say anything in dance, but if confirmed, senator hagel has signaled a very strong commitment right away to get down to business, to get invested in the work at the pentagon and its military and civilian workers. he has been a great deal of time over several weeks getting briefed on the work i had and i think i can prematurely speak for him to some extent in saying that he is looking forward to leaving the man in a minute this department if confirmed. his goal is to look to the future and secretary panetta

believes he will be outstanding. >> can he still be affect it with congress? >> absolutely. i think senator hagel is someone who has spent much of his life in the halls of the united states congress. he understands the importance of healthy debate including the confirmation process. and i think he is going to come in with a philosophy that is going to be a team player inside this building and that will extend to the united states congress. he needs to build a team and the recognizer to support the men and women of the u.s. military. there's too much work to be done. too many priorities on the table, too many issues to be addressed, terminate the slimming for national security to get bogged down in the recent past. he's going to look to the future and that's absolutely the right

orientation. >> just a quick one on sequestration. you have talked about the concerns about this that will lead to problems with readiness in the u.s. military. so if you know that, clearly you have some sense of what the threat analysis is out there. any indication, worries, concerns, but work on trees like iran and north korea. we know nato is concerned. what do countries like iran and north korea and others not so friendly to the united states, what message do they take for sequestration from the impact on the military to worry about mischiefmaking during this period by some of those countries? >> they are worried about it. and i don't blame them.

we are worried about it, too. i'm not going to get into an analysis right now or threats in areas across the globe, but i think we've been very clear that this sequestration takes effect, it will impact our readiness and will have to absorb more risk in our security and we believe that a certain point, i can't define precisely when, to certain point it is intolerable of the rest. i think that's fairly obvious and we've been clear about the devastating consequences of sequestration. as i told you yesterday, the allies that we met with last week in brussels did raise this issue. they should not have to be an issue we discuss with our allies and partners. the system being fascistic son around. people looked at this country

for leadership that we are not exercising right now. that is deeply problematic. that is precisely how we view it. we need to avoid the consequences that we know will take effect starting march 1st . >> can you offer an update on negotiations that had been going on >> the joint commission is being stood up. there will be a joint commission of isaf in afghanistan shows to look into the government can learn about wardak province and there are consultations underway in kabul right now.

i don't have at this stage the precise makeup of the commission or what it will find of course. they need to meet. we look forward to consulting with our afghan partners as we do on a daily basis on other matters. >> has secretary panetta reached out to the minister in afghanistan or president karzai about this issue? >> this is being worked by general dunford and others in general. >> there's allegations about murder, or are they looking at a larger issue of special operations in afghanistan? >> we've take those concerns seriously and realize the half cans. i don't know if they broaden their preemptory is. that is something we need to wait and see. [inaudible]

>> secretary panetta continues to work from california and as i said yesterday, watching the action in the united states. >> is the calling anything? >> he's getting regular updates from his staff on everything from intelligence to military operations and still firmly remains in the seat annual dues go until senator hagel is confirmed and sworn in. >> cannot go back to joint commission? you said is being set up n but this is two weeks and the government and those that preceded us everywhere, so is there any time you can give us? >> i think isaf is the best position to talk to specifics of timing and composition, so i would've for you to them respectively. the were obviously monitor here and let the joint commission discusses. >> to stay with joe's question for a u.s. court to keep

operations in wardak? >> i don't have the precise answer. i would really wait until the joint commission concludes its work. special operations in afghanistan are very important over the years and will let the joint commission do its work for these particular work. >> these operations were cut in two weeks, so i sat and then -- >> i think we have to wait for the process to work in kabul and that process hasn't begun yet. >> i think isaf is best to address that specific question.

yes, sir. >> could you give an update on the grabbing of the at 35, if there's any investigation or progress this week? >> i don't have a precise timeline. on friday, we announced the s. 35 fleet has been grounded because of a defect in one plane was founded on a the engine blades. what we are doing now is the prudent and logical thing, to see if this is a limited defect in one plane on one engine or if this is a design error or fraud that may affect other aircraft in the fleet. that's over examining right now and remain solely -- and current capabilities and united states into our allies and partners who are part of the f-35 program.

we are committed to addressing this problem as quickly as possible unless we have something to report, i will. >> appearing in the house appropriations committee, there is concern about the cr. in fact, chairman young said he is working with leadership to try to get defense appropriations and the milcon appropriations bill added to the cr said that before they extend existing cr, though put in those two appropriations. that would solve part of the problem. i mean, what would be the departments view in stopping the cr is not the sequestration? >> we want to solve both. we want to get past the cluster and remove the uncertainty from continuing resolution. this is a ridiculous way to run a budget show in washington and we've been shouting out from the

rooftops for a very long time. i have to say there's some professional observers out there who think we are crying wolf as i said in the opening statement. we've done the detailed analysis. we know what our budget is. sigh to strategy. i hear people making abstract comments out there about cutting more because it's got a huge budget. we don't hear a comprehensive proposal out there. so they cr plus sequestered it was devastating, it was uncertainty, it was attacks on military readiness and we need to get beyond it. if you sense frustration for me and others in the pentagon, your sentence correctly. this is stupid. >> george, as you mention your shouting from the rooftops if a solution on a hill with the white house. why do you think the departments message hasn't been getting

through? or at least not acted upon? >> i think we've been very clear. i think we have been extremely specific about what the consequences of sequestration will be for the department of defense. the, i think we have a lot of dysfunction in this town and the secretary has been clear in his comments that are used to be that governing was good politics. for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be the case in some quarters these days. but i think everyone understands what we're looking at here. not just at the defense side of the budget, but the discretionary side of the budget. it is not a dod only problem. so i don't really have a good answer for you. others are more appropriately placed to address the specifics. but we are in a tough spot right

now we need to move beyond it. dustin. >> thanks, george. lieutenant general barbero said in a jieddo statement that the fatima group has suspended some of it calcium ammonium nitrate to some of the border regions in afghanistan. do you maybe aware their fertilizer is responsible for about 80% of the ied is that kill and wound u.s. troops in afghanistan. so this is a positive development, but this is like 10 years then, 11 years in. why is it taken so long for the u.s. government to pressure them to make the slightest change? they haven't changed the formula, which they could do to make it less deadly. they are finally doing this little piece. is this a failure of diplomacy? and why hasn't the pentagon and the state department done more

to stop this fertilizer group? >> i don't have any comment on specifics here. i need to learn more about this particular story you're describing. we are concerned about the movement of materials across the border into afghanistan from pakistan. as we know, since have been taken on both sides over time to plant down on facilitation of material across the border in afghanistan where it can be used for ideas and other things. it is something we communicate on a regular basis. we have signaled are concerned to afghanistan and are taking steps as well. so i don't want to comment on the specifics, but on the broader set of questions come as something we continue to monitor. >> kenna sequester effect the

american to mali and g of anything about the hostage situation in cameroon and the video on youtube about the situation? >> i'm not going to speculate on the impact of our support to mali except there is no impact at this stage to our support. we remain committed to entertaining french requests for additional support. if they come through, the french have done an effective job of conducting operations. the secretary had a very good discussion with minister le drian in brussels and we expressed our continuing support for the french mission and the mission of countries who've also contributed to the effort in

mali. again, intelligence, information sharing, refueling. i'm not aware of any recent air lift movements, we continue to certainly support the french and will entertain feature requests. the >> cannot go back to a question about wardak, does this military afghanistan hope to be a will to keep special operations in wardak? >> well, it's really a decision made at the kabul level and isaf. i'm not going to speculate to our forces should and shouldn't be. it is a question for isaf to address. >> special operations have

played an important role. i'm not going to comment on the footprint in a particular province in afghanistan. there's a lot of strategic provinces in afghanistan. they played a very effective role in wardak and other places. but they do in the feature i'm not going to comment. >> maybe they would support maintaining operations forces in wardak. why is that you want to keep them there? >> i'm not saying we don't want to maintain a special operations presence in wardak. i'm saying i'm not going to prejudge the outcome of this office. as we jot down in afghanistan to the end of 2014 and beyond 2014, there'll be areas for a special operations were recounted in the future and what will you say that at that stage? that were not permitted to

special operations? >> this is specific to wardak and the allegations and investigation and everything aside, it's surprising the pentagon would want to say of course will maintain forces as long as we can. >> again, special operation forces are not tied to any region. our special operations forces work with the afghans conducting operations where they are needed in that the command level decision. the consultation of the afghan government into the footprint where we are the special operations sources. we typically don't comment where forces are or aren't specifically. >> suis based on results? >> you said you were earlier frustrated with the

sequestration cards and they would take us back to 2006, 2007 novels. can you address that and explain, you know, why you don't see it that way? you know, some of the critics to say hey, the defense department can insert the skies. it's after 10 years of war is taking us back to levels that were evaporated before. >> is easy to say we should go to 2006 levels or 2002 levels or 1992 levels. that's enough exercise. what we've done is a strategic exercise. we put the strategy in front of how we tailor savings over the next 10 years and that's the difference. so this is not just trained to aim towards a particular number. it's trying to define what the priorities will be going forward for this department in light of threats and challenges we face and investments in the future as well. so that is the difference.

we are the ones who have done the hard work looking across the entire department of defense budget. i see a lot of people out there saying you can cut this program. you can get savings by combining medical task forces. okay, that's an interesting idea, but i don't take anyone has the comprehensively as we have at the entire budget for a real proposal, based on a strategy. we have done the rational thing. >> for the average person to say we are ending to large-scale ground wars. in outcome we've been at war 10 years. that's over. can you see how some people would say we don't need to be operating at the same level we were? >> well, it's a very reasonable question. i would say we don't have the

benefit of standing down in light of the threats that we face in the future. we've made the mistakes that were potentially going to make in the past with the secretary and the chairman and others talk about this mistakes, where we thought we had a so-called peace dividend. right now we have threats from north korea and iran and terrorists in cyberactors around the world. so it's not like we're going from a large threat environment to a new threat environment. we have new and sustained an evolving threat we need to address any think that's that's an important distinction. you have to remember when you're looking at this department, we are talking about 3 million people. one out of 100 americans works for this department. such is make it local for a second. another four or so million

people work in the defense industrial base. we have roughly 300 million people in this country. so if i do my math correctly, that means over 2% of the american population works for this department. if 2% of the population is affected by a disproportionate level of irrational cut, that is owing to have an impact and it's going to have an impact on jobs. a dirty hands. employees have been laid off. we're about to further 800,000 civilian employees starting in april in all likelihood it sequester takes effect. 86% of their civilian jobs are outside of this metropolitan area. these are jobs that go across the country. so we're going to start to see an impact to our workforce, our mission. we're going to see an impact to the economy.

and i don't think i need to go much longer than that. it's a huge problem. >> to follow on that, if friday passes and there's no sequestration pics, that what point will the department start revising its defense strategy to the numbers you do have to face the fear in the attacks on operations in readiness you've heard about, not just carriers being taken out, the u.s. navy operations in south america being canceled. at what point will you be craft so they can all understand the strategy quite >> i don't know that there's an intent to undo our strategy. we have sequestration is diverted as quickly as possible. our focus frankly if friday his will be grouped in this $40 billion that we have to slash between march 1st and september 30th. that's a big dollar figure. so we're frankly going to do the wrong thing not because we want

to, but were forced to do it. we can't have a strategic approach to cutting a $46 this is not a time. time and it has been crashed. nearly $50 billion is a tough dollar figure. that's 10%, slightly shy of 10% of our base budget. >> since you're talking about the difference between picking a number in implementing a strategy, if you don't have resources necessary for the strategy, do you expect over the coming months will be review in the white house so that the u.s. defense strategy can now be? >> we are not dvd that moment. we believe it's the right thing for this country, not just the defense department, but to meet the mission needs of this country. we are not stepping away from that strategy. when it comes to a point in time where we have to relocated and absorb some of us, maybe we'll have to. i'm not ready to sign up to it.

another questioner question or two? nine? >> one of my colleagues asked if it sequester takes effect, do you think you will have a serious impact on the operations of the u.s. troops in south korea and japan especially? >> pattern of specifically what the impacts are in south korea or japan. i would refer you to usfj and usfk for specifics. we do expect certain impacts overall across the force globally. that is something we think is untenable, we don't like it, but we may have to live with it in the coming days. thanks, everyone.

>> fed chairman, ben bernanke returns to capitol hill tomorrow following testimony before a senate panel earlier today in which he cautioned budget cuts in the near term reardrive of the economic recovery. he'll testify before the house financial services committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can watch it live on c-span 3. earlier today, house appropriations committee chairman hal rogers warned the sequestration deadline of

march 27, the david government funding and that represent a twin threat to the u.s. economy. >> if that's okay with you, i would recognize chairman rogers, who has been working really hard at it in this program together and we think it is a way to solve some of the problems. >> wrister chairman, thank you for holding a hearing. and also for the recognition to allow me to go before the witnesses speak. first of all, welcome to the committee. this hearing is critically important. as i speak, the speaker national defense or face serious and dangerous sequestration cut, as most potentially damaging constraints of the current dod funding structure is simply extended for the remain for the

fiscal year, twin threats. first to see our, which will hit on the 27th of next month and then of course sequestration. today i want to focus your attention if you will on the cr and what you need for the balance of this year, whether it is a date change only or whether it's incorporating the bill, the defense bill and the milcon bill that passed the house overwhelmingly and was agreed to by the senate, bipartisan agreement. we want to substitute those two bills for the balance of the year, which would give you more flexibility than you now have. it is not within this committee's power to sell sequestration at this time. it is within our jurisdiction to

try and help loosen the change and allow the departments and funding flexibility in order to do its best with what it has. to this end, two weeks ago as the chairman said, i proposed a plan to craft a continuing resolution for the entire government that would include a full year defense of the regions bill. these two individual bills as i said has bipartisan support. they were conference with our democrat and republican counterparts in the senate. they been completed and lain there since last december. if enacted, this package will avoid a government shutdown, while prioritizing dod and veterans programs and ensuring a much-needed funding flexibility in what you do, being able to those monies around from different accounts for it's

absolutely imperative do that and also saving a lot of money. i know chairman young shares this goal. i sincerely applaud his leadership on the subcommittee and unwavering support for the missions of our military. >> you have to understand all of the father's primary concern, number one was with national security. so what would they say, for example, about a company such as lockheed? i am of the opinion based on how they act and in other instances, they would have grudgingly favored a bailout because it supplied the united states at the time of its top fighter jet and top reconnaissance plans. i think you can make an argument they would've supported, for example, the bailout of chrysler back in the 1980s, but not the bailout of chrysler today. with the difference?

chrysler backbend maintains. they were our only tank manufacturer and it's interesting when chrysler comes out the day repays a government loan and kind of comes back to. maybe they do so is by selling off the tank divisions and plowing the money back in to the company. >> two republican subcommittee leaders from the house armed services committee today introduced a bill that would redistribute the automatic defense cuts scheduled to begin friday under the sequester. they spoke to reporters inside the capitol for about 25 minutes. >> at afternoon and we want to

welcome all of you here. thank you for coming today. we know you all have busy days. we've got busy days, but i'm delighted to be here with you today. and congressman randy "forbes" from the congressional bluster and i have the privilege of sharing the power committee. i enjoyed with a a friend of mine, chairman of the house armed services subcommittee on readiness, rob wittman from the first history. we will be brief and opening comments that we can give you as much as you need ferny questions you might have. as all of you know, we are facing a living death knight for sequestration at every so sequestration is a bad idea. that is a bad idea what the president proposed it. i fought to get the president not to sign it. i lost both of those sites. after that, bob and i have work in the last year with other members of congress, trying to

raise awareness of sequestration across the country would be people were talking about it. they launched an event in virginia approximately a year ago to find a solution to sequestration. we traveled across the country, tried to talk to people about them know we would be right here today where we are. we believe sequestration is going to have enormous impact not just economically in virginia. we will suffer more than any state, but a strategic point of view anyway you look at it we have a perfect storm. we are hearing people talk about sequestration, going to put in context three things happening now to national defense in this country. the first is that many of you know, we ferny taken over how the trying dollars of cuts to national defense. i think that was far too many cuts to make. they were done at a point that put us in a very, very difficult point in time strategically.

even before we get to sequestration, the army is ready to cut 80,000 individuals from the army. we didn't hear anything for the last year. so sequestration past relative to those cut. in addition to that as we now with our ships, we have had independent panel talk about the fact 2346 ships in the navy, based on testimony we've had before the subcommittee is, we know testimony has been combatant commanders immediately to size 400 to 500 ships. the navy said we need at least 313 ships. they've now reduce that. so really about 300 the budgets are taking them down below the 300 figure. in addition, the 300 figure only reaches in 2038 on the road and decide to increase deployments for our men and women in uniform

from six months to plan it to seven-month deployments. all of that before we get to the point of sequestration. the final part of the air force has testified at a time of readiness since 2003, have another half trillion dollar cut this thing coming to the air force. that brings us to where we are in addition to those cuts. the fact we passed a defense to purge the lighthouse come in the has failed to pass the defense of the rations though and the navy says that is hurting them is the lack of a budget for the senate. so we had such a defect in a few days who have sequenced ration, another half trillion dollars in cut that will go to our national defense and we think that is a bridge too far. so what if we tried to do? in addition to raising this awareness, we've tried to work on the house leadership and have successfully passed two bills that would stop seaquist ration

last summer as many of them at the senate has failed to put forward a single bill up to this point in time and the president has not put a single proposal forward. in addition to that, since we didn't get except hints, the senate has not put anything forward in the president hasn't put anything forward. i filed a bill that would say you remember the president talking about tax rates used the phrase we have to at least be able to find that we agree upon can get that off the table. they all agree on one thing. sequestration seems to be a bad idea for the national defense. if that's the case, we've written a simple about the size as to national defense, sequestration would not apply. beside the bill and hope if nothing else we can get the bill passed. it would put cuts and everyone else here do with either the appropriators, but just they were not going to use the arbitrary situation we have to deal with sequestration.

final two points before i turn it over to congressman whitman is the fact is many because the president has traveled to virginia today to one of our shipyards. it's always good when the president comes to visit any of our shipyards. the question i leave to you is to ask this, whether or not the president can fake sequestration in a shipyard in virginia. if you can, i wish he would've been their year ago so what has this unstable situation occurred to have. the likelihood is remote. i suggest the president would be better spending his time in washington coming meeting with people who disagree with him so he can try to get a resolution and hopefully some sort of compromise. last thing is the work compromise. we hear people talking about that. the president was to use it. one of the things many of us are mature enough to know is this,

if you take the wrong medicine to cure an illness, it can sometimes be worse than no medicine. if you have the wrong compromise, can be worse than no compromise at all. i want to point out that sequestration, that probably are all facing was a compromise proposed by the president and even though i voted against it, we are facing it today. last thing i want to point out to you is this how many people ask why it is so difficult to get a compromise in washington? may show you three points in the president because he is our commander-in-chief. the first is simply this. it's difficult to reach compromise when you consistently move the goalposts. as you all know, the bca was supposed to be a compromise. they talk about the fact it is a compromise, but no sooner than it got passed, all of a sudden

you are moving the goalposts getting more revenue in. secondly, a month or so ago we had a big debate, crisis time for whether we would increase tax rates because the compromise i'm not print and cut out and try. second thing, the president has really a difficult time talking to people who don't agree with him. so if you see the president bringing individuals in congress who might disagree with him and sit down and talk to see if they can resolve differences, the president instead has rendered himself at campaign stops where he puts people who already agree with him around to cheer and clap everything he says. if you want to reach to compromise, go anywhere with people who might disagree and listen for a moment if you can reach a compromise. third and final thing is this. the best way to get a compromise is not to think everybody who

disagrees with you some type of villain are nice with the president seems to put up when it goes and attacks ever public income almost 50% across the country. just because they disagree, has to impugn their motives and their analytical abilities. so i hope the president after he is a campaign event will come back to washington comes the towns and hopefully get some sort of compromise that will stop sequestration from taking place. with that i would turn it over now to chairman whitman who will talk about some of the dangers of sequestration itself. >> thanks. thanks for your eloquent plane out of the issue before us. just as you see here come a couple weeks ago we asked the chief of naval operations and commandant of the marine corps if this is a picture of things to come. five aircraft carriers, four large nsaids, large person of

her naval presence there, not a c., sailors at the dock. their answer to last lysias. the sequestration into effect, we can expect more in the future. aircraft carriers not been deployed, new aircraft carriers not being built, current ones not being refueled. such an insignificant. that cuts right to the issue of readiness. we heard the issue of readiness and they termed it as a readiness crisis, inability for this nation to bond to the threats out there around the globe in a way that assures we can be that tori is whatever situation we face. back to me deeply, deeply concerning i appreciate the president traveling today being across the river from powerful naval base. so he understands the great

bishops in the world are built there in the commitment that it takes from them to do that job, how important industrial bases to the nation, how important our civilian employees are within dod and the contracting community. are those individuals are part of what it vfx date and the president speaks about compromise, putting ideas on the table. let's find common ground and make sure we finally see that. i have to agree 100% with the thought of a balanced approach. the balanced approach as we than $600 billion in tax increases that just passed in january. without any reduction in spending. now the time is the reduction in spending. the balance is not there at this point and we urge the president to be part of the discussion to come up with reductions. we talk about a budget by 2.4%, certainly that is doable.

if we cannot achieve that, that level of production, which decreases the rate of increase. a it doesn't even get us below where we are from years past two today. we ought to do that and we can do it in a way thoughtful and not disruptive and in a way that doesn't tie the leaders of our military's hands and the things they need to do, was sent to put forward their priorities to make sure they are doing what is necessary for other service branches to do the job they're charged with doing. i go back to the issue of readiness. all of them have said this will severely impact readiness around the world. to me that's an ticketed before we have before us, to make sure reductions across the budget are done in a mindful way as congressman "forbes" has spoken of, we talk about a balanced approach. about ruby in 2011, $487 billion

in reductions were placed in the defense budget. now is the time to look at other areas as far as achieving the savings to reduce the budget unless we go through that, for come back and talk about where we can be more efficient, i am all for that. we have to a balanced approach of us spend a might have to talk about spending the non-defense areas. we party tried the waters and reducing or addressing the revenue side of the equation and happiness increased revenues. so i see that as the passport for discussions in the president places the ideal balance. it truly is the balanced approach to talk about spending areas and specifically ways become like an offsetting reductions proposed on the defense budget side and especially not only where we can reduce the budget and other places to savings and peace, but

also looking on the current situation within the pentagon and making sure that our leaders have the ability to meet this nation's priorities and making the spending decisions. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and here is german "forbes" and we look forward to taking your questions. >> can you clarify when you talk about to completely remove the sense from all requests? >> it would. let me give you two points on that. sequestration has two primary components that we dislike. one is the severity of cuts. the second is the arbitrary way in which it does it. were basically saying we must all agree we don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. this bill would in a simplistic form everyone can understand,

simply save sequestration would not apply to national defense. the perp readers could do whatever they wanted to do in terms of their budgets in adjusting numbers anywhere they wanted to, but would basically say we are not going to use this arbitrary approach when it comes to national defense. >> we seem to be hearing to messages from republicans. one is that this is dangerous and the department of defense is in serious question. we've had comments like friend mitch mcconnell that isn't that the type is that? it seems a little confusing, is this really bad for the kind of cut we need? >> when you look across the building we are in, always the are modeled messages. in fact, from my democratic friends want to do away with huge segments of the budget completely. some have more cuts taken place,

some of fud against those cuts. the republican side will have some people don't talk in terms of overall cut in somewhat narrow in on defense. if i took the two items you raised, one of them he overalls running across the budget. we are not asking the president to step spending. we're asking them to moderate and as chairman whitman pointed out, we are talking about 2.4% of the budget the size of our budget. if that brings the nation during his commitment something we have to be concerned about. but there's a whole different picture when we talk about defense because as rob pointed out, every single cut so far has been defense. find me any other cuts. it wasn't just 487 billion. that was the last bite they took out of the apple, but they've had well over a half trillion dollars already they've taken

into over the defense cut on top of that, i can tell you i think bob would agree for the readiness subcommittee, our national defense can't withstand static into the two of the national defense we want to protect and defend this country. >> is randy pointed out, there's art events at advocate reductions, over half a trillion dollars. if you don't look at what the sequester puts in place, it's also disproportionate. 50% of the cuts will take place in 20% of the budget. it's a disproportionality will be faced with cuts to national defense to create the imbalance. the 2.4% as an overall reduction of the budget which really talks specifically to the point to say the spread cut out in defense of 30 taken its fair share, it puts in his what we really need to do

to get this in hand and that's what we have to remember is disproportionate to the defense budget in the last two years purposes to do even more that creates a strategic imbalance for her forces. >> yesterday at the white house, secretary napolitano suggested if the sequester were to go ahead, and it's looking likely that the united states would be compromised to protect against a terrorist attack, talk about military veteran astronaut active. where do you think this puts us after friday militarily in our ability to do the things we need to do? >> from a military perspective it affects the readiness because our military chiefs to have the ability to place those cuts thoughtfully methodically across the defense budget. i have to go through any baloney

sliced by a cut across the board. so they don't have the ability to make a priority decision about where funding needs to be placed on reductions seem to be placed. this is regardless of the importance come you've got to cut everything, which doesn't make sense. that's the logical part comedy and of type. if they have the ability to say in my best judgment coming years cases where it can reduce the budget that would not have as much impact, that would make this less complicated. still exacerbates the issue because this is another cut and a series of cut that continues to cut the ability for military to do the japanese to do. >> i hope one of the things we'll see smart people asking the question you just race, but not just sequestration. we will mimic a a lot of the horror stories here seen this year, anomalies.

we can do a lot of that, but were so going to have huge problems with national defense in terms of readiness to where we want to be. it's not just sequestration. as you know, the administration nutriment these missile defense systems turmeric put them on the back of the navy, due to need be no additional resources. one of the cuts we see his availability to do upgrades. so we will have a gap in terms of ships under overall shipbuilding plan. part of that is increasing deployment to seven months instead of six. that's a huge thing on the men and women in uniform at the sequestration. by 2020, we'll be outmanned in terms of submarines 78 to 98 to 32 bit chinese. one of those are good pictures. we'll be looking at this in the context of cut havarti been taken. what can we afford to spend on

defense? the second question, what's the risk by not supplying these resources? [inaudible] >> -- pat to me, rob portman, members of the super committee long gone. why are we hearing about them and why are people pass this? >> we need to know where it comes from to nowhere going. put blame where you want. i could put blame on the president for having proposed it. i can put the blame on congress for not reaching an agreement. i can feel it a lot i didn't vote for, so don't blame me, but that doesn't help us. one of the things we started out with, a bad compromise will be

worse than no compromise at all. so the real difficulty we have in washington today is the inability to come in a room and listen to people who disagree and try to find not much compromise, but, ground. the common ground we had to find today if nothing else is the national defense this country. i'm not asking anybody to compromise their principles. can you sit in a room and talk instead of going out with press conferences? were not beating anybody a. we're saying this is something for the american people, sit in the room to find common ground, even though where we are in time at least the national defense find common ground to take that off the table if nothing else. >> it seems as though they have long been lost in this process and because of their failure, we

often heard positive things. >> i didn't think super committee was a good idea. i can't defend their failure or success. i don't know if you want to comment about super committees. >> at this particular point, the path we've been over as inconsequential. at the time it would've been answered by congressman "forbes" and myself were very vocal about the super committee meeting to get their job done. that time is expired. it also said congress ought to be in session through august, september, october, working on things. now we are here where we are to a series of events. i think folks look and say, you know, we don't care who's at fault. a lot of folks in crisis fatigue say why do we go from crisis to crisis? do i need to find common ground that chairman spoke to.

they could not i can analyze how they got here, but the reality is this is where we are and we have the obligation to the nation and then the man who served his nation coming dod civilian employees in the great contractor workforce as well as this nation's national defense needs to get this done. when you raise your hand, you look there and that's one of the top things we have is our job and that is to defend this nation and provide for its armies and navies. thus the people out there expect us to do and expect us to make tough decisions. here we are at the 11th hour needed to do that and that's why we're here talking about opportunities for us to get that done, let's do that. >> we're not going to be on the super committee. understand, you're on march 1st comes in sequestration hats, were not going to say that good.

we'll continue to work and mitigate consequences. [inaudible] >> what is the nature of the tenor of the discussion? is that something consider? and if so, who's involved to an extent? >> they been involved in those conversations both at the committee level and the conference leadership. there's concerns about giving carte blanche transfer authority. chairman "forbes" and myself have been part of a discussion to say let's identify priorities of the service branches to determine where money is needed to really address the most severe and timely need and let's

put together acr that allows that. we understand how we meet those needs as part of the discussion going forward. chairman has been an integral part of that. >> remember sequestration team that you had to put your dictionaries? pull them out for the word anomaly because next week that is what you're looking on as we start working on crs and putting anomalies and that will help allocate those budget items into the lions the service chiefs need so they won't have to do quite to her stories were hearing today. i think will mitigate an awful lot of that in that process. good, thank you, everybody. ..